Partly allowed

Ati Venkata Sridhara Sai Ram, v. Smt. Ati Venkata Devaki

Telangana HC24 Oct 2013FCA/348/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the trial court's maintenance decree, directing the appellant to pay Rs.3,000 monthly for the minor child. The court held the mother, who is employed, cannot claim maintenance without sharing expenditure and extended the arrears payment period.

What did the court decide?

Modified order directing payment of RM at Rs.3,000/month and arrears cleared in 20 monthly installments from Dec 2013.

Ati Venkata Sridhara Sai Ram, Vs Smt. Ati Venkata… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL

¶2

F.C.A. No.348 of 2013

¶3

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶4

The appellant is the husband of the 1^st respondent and the 2^nd respondent is their son. The 1^st respondent filed O.P.No.300 of 2008 in the Court of the Additional Family Judge, Visakhapatnam against the appellant for divorce. In addition to that, the respondents herein filed O.P.No.284 of 2008 claiming maintenance. The appellant on his part filed O.P.No.991 of 2008 for the custody of the minor child, the 2^nd respondent. All the three O.Ps. were clubbed and through a common order, dated 06.01.2011, the trial Court allowed O.P.No.300 of 2008, dismissed O.P.No.991 of 2008 and partly allowed O.P.No.284 of 2008 directing that the appellant shall pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of filing of the O.P. till the date of decree and at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of decree. The arrears were required to be paid in ten instalments. This appeal is filed against the decree in O.P.No.284 of 2008.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

As of now, the marriage between the appellant and the 1^st respondent stood dissolved. The appellant made an effort to get the custody of the minor child, but the same did not fructify on account of the opposition offered by the 1^st respondent.

¶7

Being the mother of the child, the 1^st respondent is certainly entitled to the custody. The claim made by the 1^st respondent for her maintenance also was not accepted by the trial Court on finding that she is employed. Being the father of the child, the appellant, no doubt, is under obligation to maintain his child. At the same time, the 1^st respondent cannot have the luxury of denying custody of the child to the appellant and expect maintenance at fabulous amounts. When she herself is an employee and she wants exclusive custody of the child, she too is under obligation to bear the expenditure.

¶8

It is represented on behalf of the appellant that though his gross salary at one stage is about Rs.50,000/-, and later, it was Rs.25,000/-, as of now, it is Rs.9,000/-.

¶9

We are of the view that the maintenance can be granted at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month throughout and the facility of instalments for payment of arrears can be expanded to a small extent.

¶10

Hence, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the decree passed by the trial Court to the effect that the appellant shall be under obligation to pay maintenance to the 2^nd respondent at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) per month from the date of filing of the O.P. The arrears that have accrued so far shall be cleared in 20 monthly instalments, commencing from December, 2013. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.

¶12

______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY,J ______________________ M.S.K.JAISWAL,J

¶13

Dt:24.10.2013

¶14

kdl

Ati Venkata Sridhara Sai Ram, v. Smt. Ati Venkata Devaki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ati Venkata Sridhara Sai Ram, v. Smt. Ati Venkata Devaki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Spl Dy Collectorandlao. La. Port Dev. Kaki Vs Manga Apparao

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Vs Kandakam Siddi Ramappa (Died) L.Rs.

The La Officer Cum Mro, Vs P. Krishna Murthy

D.Swarnalatha Vs Lao(Sub Collector)Tenali

Mummaneni Lakshmeeswari Vs R.D.O. (Lao) Gudiwada

Smt. Tummala Palli Annapurnamma Vs The La Officer